UNIVERSITIES CHALLENGED

If you wanted to expose the fault lines of devolution, University funding seems an unlikely place to begin. After all, if you were to ask Deputy First Minister Jim Wallace to name a success story for the Scottish Parliament, the chances are he would place the ‘abolition’ of tuition fees high on his list.

Of course, no such thing happened. With his lawyer’s tongue turned inside out, upfront fees were instead repackaged as an ‘endowment’ and repayment deferred until after a student had graduated. This was to be paid back when a graduate began to earn as little as £10,000 per year, or £5.50 per hour on a standard 35 hour week.

While worse, arguably, than the system it replaced because of the lower repayment threshold, here nonetheless was a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem, and how the Labour/Lib Dem coalition invited us to rejoice. An example, surely, of devolution in action, so how can this be an example of the failure of Labour’s constitutional reforms?

Not content with scrapping the student grant and introducing fees when they came to power in 1997, it hasn’t taken long for the neo-Thatcherites of New Labour to look again at how they can get students to pay even more for their education. In doing so, they have floated two proposals, both of which threaten to drive a coach and horses through the whole principle of Scottish self-government. 

The first of these proposals is for a graduate tax. However, as there is no provision to exempt Scots from the imposition of such a tax, this would have to be applied UK-wide. This would mean taxing Scottish graduates twice over, or Scotland having to scrap its newly introduced system of student funding and falling into line with English policy.

The second proposal is to introduce so-called ‘top-up’ fees, increasing the level of fees paid by students to their institutions. This would then result in English universities having much greater sums to spend on salaries and research, which in turn would mean Scottish universities falling behind and an inevitable relative drop in standards.

The Barnett formula allocates resources to Scotland as an ever-decreasing proportion of what is spent in England. However, top-up fees would represent a new source of funding for English universities. If central government funding for universities in England were to fall as a result of a top-up fee windfall, Scotland would feel the chill through a consequent fall in the amount the Executive receives each year through Barnett.

The only way to prevent this would be to increase funding for Scottish universities to the same tune as that south of the border. But with a decreasing block grant, the only option under the current constitutional arrangement to the alternative of long-term relative decline would be to apply the regressive ‘tartan tax’, cut expenditure elsewhere or to fall in line with the English system.

So there you have it. The Scottish Parliament can do pretty much what it likes on devolved matters such as health, education or transport, but because the money it receives for these services is proportionate to that spent in England, there is intense pressure not to diverge from English policies and spending patterns. English spending decisions have a knock-on effect on the Scottish budget and increasingly, as the Barnett formula reduces Scotland’s share of UK spending, Scotland will find herself being bounced into following policies made in London.

Henry Ford once said that a man could have any colour of car he wanted as long as it was black. In Scotland, it seems we can have any policy we like as long as it is compatible with English spending plans. University funding provides yet another example of how devolution will continue to sell Scotland short and why it is more important than ever that we win Independence.

WHY I’M VOTING FOR JOHN

The last time I had the chance to vote for John Swinney as SNP leader, I decided to back Alex Neil instead. As it happened, neither John nor Alex was my preferred candidate.  However, after a disappointing election in 1999 and weighing up the issues as I saw them, I believed that change was needed to make the party more inclusive and to get it back on track. With this in mind, I cast my vote accordingly.

So why, in the face of a disappointing election result, am I backing John Swinney this time round?  The simple answer is that he’s gradually won me over. In comparing the party now with the party as it was in 1999, John has either addressed or is beginning to address nearly all of the issues I saw then as being a problem for the SNP and frankly, I’m delighted.

Take Europe. For years, the SNP was fairly uncritical, accepting most things EU related as being an unqualified good. Although scathing about the Scottish democratic deficit, we had little or nothing to say on the European version. Increasingly, this saw us out of step with Scottish public opinion, which while avoiding the virulent xenophobia of the southern tabloids, has maintained a healthy scepticism towards the European Union.

The party is now adopting a more realistic attitude towards the EU. It is likely to back the EU draft constitution because it supports the SNP vision of a Confederal Europe of nation states. However, in calling for a referendum prior to ratification of the constitution, it is still conceivable that the SNP would argue for a ‘No’ vote if the final draft gave the EU exclusive competence over issues such as marine conservation. This puts us much more in tune with the voters, and I believe, our membership.

I wrote back in March about the contrast between the 1999 and 2003 campaigns (see http://www.electricscotland.com/si/2003/030314/index.htm). Our 2003 campaign had Independence to the fore and was the best organised and most coherent I can remember in 10 years as an activist. While there are always things you would like to change with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it was Labour’s entrenchment at constituency level allied to the volatility of the lists in a 6-party system which conspired to stuff us in many parts of Scotland.

Undoubtedly, there are issues to confront. Why, for instance, was the SNP performance so erratic over the country? If our central belt performance was so dismal, why did we win a seat like Ochil and come so close in Cumbernauld? If we can win city seats in Aberdeen and Dundee, why did we get the bum’s rush in most of Edinburgh and Glasgow? If the Lib Dems were on such a roll, how did we manage to come within 500 votes of turfing them out in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale?

John’s analysis that we were caught between being a party of protest and a party of power has more than a ring of truth to it. Nonetheless, regardless of the hard work put in by individual activists, the results show that we tend to do better in areas where we are well organised and do worse in areas where we are not. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it does tell us that we need to improve our party organisation if we are to make further inroads at constituency level.

The only way to improve our organisation is to increase our funding and increase our activist base. The only way to do this is to increase and maintain our membership, in the process giving them a greater say in how the party is run. I therefore accept John’s analysis that one of the best ways to do this is to become a true mass membership party, introducing one member one vote and a centralised membership system to ensure the highest standards of administration year after year.

The challenger to John Swinney, Dr Bill Wilson, is an intelligent and able man with political experience in the Oxford Labour party as well as the Glasgow SNP. Knowing that the conference ‘selectorate’ will be made up mostly of party activists, he makes no bones about playing to an internal audience.

In his view, the 2003 campaign ‘didn’t wash’ with voters. Our commitment to Independence has been ‘watered down’ by the leadership through offering a pre-legislative referendum. Policies passed by the activists were ‘ignored’ in the 2003 manifesto, he claims. In short, the party is being ‘New Labourised’ and needs to be reclaimed by the ‘grassroots’.

These grassroots appear to stop at branch level, though. One member one vote is anathema to the Wilson campaign. The response to electoral setback is not to empower the membership or broaden the party’s appeal, but to shout Independence even louder and keep power in the hands of a select few activists. The response is defensive and negative, resorting to finger pointing rather than identifying where we need to go from here.

In all of this, I cannot remember Dr Wilson ever taking to a podium at the SNP’s National Conference or National Council to advance any of the points he has made in his campaign to date. Where was he, for instance, when the referendum policy was changed democratically in March 2000 at the National Council held in Glasgow’s Mitchell Library? For this reason, above all others, I cannot take his posturing as a defender of the grassroots remotely seriously.

I do not believe he is an attention seeker, but his challenge smacks of student gesture politics. He cannot hope to win, so instead of engaging constructively he seeks to damage John in the name of a ‘debate’, presumably in the hope that a candidate more to his liking will be emboldened to go forward next year. In the meantime, our unionist opponents rub their hands with glee as their lackeys in the press paint a lurid picture of a party in the throes of a crisis.

To an early doubter like me, John has since his election shown himself to be a trustworthy, level-headed and frequently inspirational advocate of Independence. I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says that we need to become more representative of modern Scotland if we are ever to lead our country to Independence. While not an uncritical supporter of any leader, he has in my view shown that he has what it takes to win political leadership in Scotland and with it, the ultimate prize of Independence.

Throughout its history, the SNP has been at its best when reaching out to broaden its appeal to the voters. In contrast, it has been at its very worst when turning in on itself and projecting a shrill and strident face to Scottish Nationalism. In my opinion, John deserves continued support to deliver a party capable of achieving the former. I’ll take a hell of a lot of convincing that the prescription of Dr Wilson and his camp followers will do anything to help us avoid the latter.

SYNOPSIS

SNP dismiss "Proud to be British" citizenship rules
Westminster, 03 September 2003
 

Commenting on the publication of a report today [Wednesday] on the need for new UK citizens to learn to be "proud to be British", the Scottish National Party's Westminster Home Affairs Spokesperson Ms Annabelle Ewing MP said:

"This entire exercise is mistaken and ill-conceived. For a start, singling out immigrants for special citizenship classes and oaths of loyalty to the UK is itself discriminatory, since these will not be required of people who already live here.

"But David Blunkett really gives the game away when he says that the whole exercise is about making people 'proud to be British', and 'binding us together as a nation'.

"The UK is not a 'nation', and the many Scots of all ethnic backgrounds who support the SNP and Scottish Independence have the democratic right to be loyal to Scotland rather than the UK.

"The 'Scots Asians for Independence' Group, for example, has widespread support among Scotland's Asian community - would they fall foul of David Blunkett's 'proud to be British' cricket test?

"In Scotland, it is perfectly right for newcomers to our country to have a dual identity - to be passionately proud of being Scottish, and also to retain a strong affinity to the country that they come from. The silly report would appear to rule out both of these important identities."

HUDGHTON SEEKS TO PLUG PENSIONS LOOPHOLE

Nationalist MEP, Ian Hudghton, is contacting the European Commission and UK Government in an attempt to resolve a pensions anomaly which could be infringing UK pensioners rights to live in another EU country.  The MEP has taken up the case of a constituent who has discovered that he stands to lose one-fifth of his pension entitlement, gained by working in New Zealand in the 1950’s and 60’s, if he moves to Spain.  The only way he keeps his full pension is if he stays in the UK.

The constituent’s NZ pension is governed by the Social Security (New Zealand) Order 1983, which states that such pensions “shall cease to be payable if and when the person to whom, or in respect of whom, the pension is payable leaves the United Kingdom.”  Thus, the thousands of UK citizens who spent some of their working lives in New Zealand now risk losing a chunk of their income by retiring to another EU country. 

The Strasbourg Parliament this week is discussing increased co-ordination of EU social security and pension payments to prevent financial loss to people who move within the EU.  The report does not extend to UK pensioners with New Zealand pensions.  Mr Hudghton believes the current legislation puts many pensioners at a financial disadvantage and wants the law changed.

Speaking en route to Strasbourg today, the MEP said:

“It would be interesting to know how many people are potentially affected by this.  Thousands left the UK to work in New Zealand and elsewhere in the 50’s and 60’s.  Of those who have returned to the UK, there may be a fair few contemplating retirement elsewhere in Europe but for whom, the prospect of losing a sizeable chunk of their income is giving them second thoughts.  This undermines the right of these pensioners to free movement – one of the fundamental principles of the EU.

“Many UK citizens choose, as they are entitled under EU rules, spend their retirement years in the warmer climes of southern Europe, some for health reasons, but others to be near family who live and work abroad.  As a growing number of those who went to New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s reach pension age, it is imperative that we plug this loophole.

“I have written to the Commission expressing my concerns and will liaise with my Westminster colleagues on how the required legislative change can be made.  In the meantime, I would be interested to hear from any other pensioners for whom this has been an issue with a view to lodging a petition in Brussels.  I can be contacted at my constituency office on 01382-903206”

Far-right politician's visit axed
Holyrood, 02 September 2003

SNP Business Manager and Chief Whip Mr Bruce Crawford MSP has today welcomed the decision from the Council of Flemish Community Commission to exclude Mr Dominiek Lootens-Stael of Vlaams Block from a visit to Scotland, and has added that the Scottish Parliament must never be used as a platform for racist views. Mr Crawford said;

"The decision taken by the Flemish Authorities to remove Dominiek Lootens-Stael of Vlaams Block from the delegation which is to visit Scotland is a welcome conclusion to a delicate issue.

"His visit has the potential to cause an embarrassment for the Scottish Parliament and I am glad that a common sense position has now been reached.

"While we should welcome visits from other political parties, we should not do so at the expense of the Scottish Parliament's reputation and that of our
political processes.

"It is clear that comments made by Dominiek Lootens-Stael have caused embarrassment to the Council of Flemish Community Commission but I applaud the decision they have now reached."

Blair's new media arrangements - "Wages of spin is political death"
Westminster, 03 September 2003

Commenting on the announcement today [Wednesday] of the new media communications arrangements at 10 Downing Street following the departure of Alastair Campbell, Scottish National Party Westminster leader Mr Alex Salmond MP said:

"New Labour were created by spin; they have governed by spin; and they even took the country to war, causing thousands of innocent deaths, by spin.

"For Tony Blair, the wages of spin will be political death.

"Having built an entire system of government on manipulating and twisting information, it is totally incredible for Tony Blair to say that he is now going to drop spin.

"Without spin, New Labour are nothing. What has changed since the Iraq war and the scale of the Government's deception has become apparent is that people have seen right through the shiny façade to the unpleasant reality that is New Labour."

THE BLACK VELVET BAND
Traditional

Alibi

Read and listen to Jokes in our Scot Wit section